More than one hundred years ago Russian scientists and state activists proved that development of local self-government is majorly defined by legislations in development of a state and society. In this case it is interesting to analyze condition and forms of local self-government in other countries of the world that differ in “distance” between state government bodies and local authorities, institutional or territorial organization of power, financial provision, authorities, volume, etc.
Local self-government, being a general conception that reflects a process of forming and developing democracy on territories can be established according to different models and in various organization-legal forms. Some of them are acknowledged by modern scientists, and discussions still go on regarding certain municipal reforms nowadays.
In modern foreign countries local self-government usually represents: a) a system of decentralized organization that has been formed as a result of continuous evolutionary development; b) division of public power into state and municipal branches. At the foundation of interaction between these two types of public power an efficient management of social affairs should be established. For example, we would like to outline that in a number of countries, such as Vietnam, China, Cuba, Laos, etc. local authorities is involved into the system of state bodies. Its separation from the state is typical for Australia, Great Britain, India, Canada, USA, moreover, law allows government to delegate certain state functions to local authorities in Germany, Austria, Italy, Chech republic, Hungary, and some other countries. It is typical that, regardless of “distance” between local authority and state, numerous efficient forms of control and effective management of state bodies by local self-government. As effective management we define achievement of goals in set time frame with minimum costs of social resources.
A number of methods of providing bodies of local self-government with authorities is known. The greatest general volume of authorities, functions, and objectives is given to local bodies of Sweden, Demark, Switzerland, Norway. We should also outline that costs of these legal bodies form over 20% of GDP in these countries. This index does not exceed 10% in Italy or Netherlands, in Cyprus, Malta, and Greece it equals 5%.
In most countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America law regulates functions, objectives, rights, and responsibility of local authorities. In states of Anglo-Saxon law tradition (Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand ,USA) it is studied as a natural right of population that, at the same time, can be limited by law, broadened or altered. In most European countries legislation defines general limits of local self-government functions. Such approach, particularly, is based upon requirements of European charter of local self-government, and their essence can be expressed as: “Bodies of local self-government possess a complete freedom to act and realize their initiative on any problem that isn’t excluded from their area of competence and isn’t under jurisdiction of any other body of power” (part 2 of clause 4).
Forms of organizing local self-government in foreign practice are diverse. Thus, USA, Germany, and Great Britain do not have a unique system of local self-government, while in France, Spain, and Portugal the system is based upon origins that are same for all municipal authorities. Bodies of local authority are provide with a state of legal person, and in certain countries, such as Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Great Britain, France, local societies also have a status of legal person.
We should also underline that international historical experience of realizing democratic ideas represents a result of continuous search for optimal solutions, balance between regional self-government and statehood
Depending on interaction between bodies of state government and local self-government the following models of local self-government are outlined: 1) continental (French); 2) Anglo-Saxon; and 3) combined (German). Anglo-Saxon model that is adopted in Great Britain, Austria, USA, Canada, is defined as classical one The following distinctive features are typical for it:
- high autonomy;
- lack of direct submission between municipal bodies of different levels;
- selection of not only representative bodies, but also municipal authorities by population;
- combination of administrative and court control over legality of actions by municipal bodies.
Continental model – this model is adopted by continental Europe, French-speaking Africa, Near East, Latin America. It described by:
- combination of direct state management represented by state administration on territories of local self-government;
- bureaucratic subordination between different levels of bodies of authority;
- strict system of administrative control on territories and administrative impact of central authority, including preliminary control of decisions, ability to cancel decisions, their re-study, suspension, and also recall, resignation, dismissal bodies of local self-government.
Combined model, practice of which is widely-spread in Germany, Austria, Japan has certain specific features and adapts necessary experience in the mentioned models. Thus, interaction between local self-government with state leadership is provided by the system of relations between heads of governmental districts with leaders of administrations of regions – landrats (regional directors that are also state authorities) and heads of executive organs of communal self-government (cities of regional rank). Co-submission between higher and lower-standing municipal bodies exists; limited authority of local self-government takes place in certain governmental districts.
We shall outline that European charter of local self-government, signed and accepted in October 1985 testifies for lack of principle differences between the existing models and their convergence.
Speaking of American continent, we can say that local self-government isn’t mentioned in Constitution of USA, though American federative system represents a totality of federal, state, local level of authority, in other words, from constitutional point of view, local government forms a part of state authority. As bodies of local self-government collect taxes, regulate life of population, establish other services, they actually carry out functions of a state that delegated these functions to them (ландратами Dye Th. Politics in State and Communities Cliffs.P.230).
Active alterations and conflicting trends are observed in the system of local self-government throughout the world. Some institutional forms of local self-government single out:
1) municipal formations that have obtained significant, financially-based authorities;
2) inter-municipal formations (e.g. in 2005 85% of population of France has been involved into various forms of inter-municipal self-government that provided for efficient solution to many territorial problems through consolidation of local resources of several municipal formations);
3) informal institutions, such as conferences, forums. During them local authorities discus and solve problems of local development in collaboration with society.
We cannot neglect the fact that spatial borders are no longer the only criterion of outlining subjects of local self-government. Territories become a crossroad of legislative, physical, human, formal, and informal inter-dependences and strategies in terms of related social-economical subjects.
Being a relatively isolated part of constitutional mechanism of state authority, local self-government has the following key features in modern western democracies:
- it is based upon representative ideas:
- it does not depend on governmental bodies in solving problems of local nature;
- it acts in accordance with law and is limited by its directions;
- it has its own sources of income,
- it possesses independent property, etc.
A trend towards extension of municipalities has been observed in Europe during recent years. For example, since 2007 the number of local council has decreased from 271 to 98 in Denmark. Larger municipal societies exist in Great Britain and Germany. Through territorial reorganization central authority tries to increase efficiency of local government. Thus, territorial reformation of Germany has decreased number of regions (and societies) from 425 to 250 ( from over 24 thousand to 11 thousand correspondingly).
On the other hand, processes of breaking up local societies are observed in North America (Canada, USA), Asia (Turkey, Libya). These trends are mostly intense in Latin America; for example, since 1990 till 2000 about 1,5 thousand of new municipalities have been formed in Brazil. In Mexico their number increased up to 2,5 thousand, and there are more than 1 thousand of them in Columbia. In other words, improvement of local self-government system is not yet complete in different countries.
Presence of outdated administrative-territorial forms complicates solution of social-economic problems and efficient activity of local governments. It is impossible to neglect the fact that spatial borders are no longer the only criterion of outlining subjects of local self-government. Territories become a crossroad of legislative, physical, human, formal, and informal inter-dependences and strategies in terms of related social-economical subjects.
An important condition of reforming local self-government in foreign countries is not only broadening its authorities, but mostly creation of optimal conditions for facilitation all potential of a territory, provision of an efficient interaction between interests of all subjects that want to participate in local development: small and medium business, informational areas, and areas of communication means. Thus, special inter-communal formations: syndicates, city districts, broadened city communes have become widely-spread in France. Resources (human, infrastructural, natural, cognitive, etc.) become a significant condition that defines attraction degree of local self-government subjects).
As we have already mentioned, the system of municipal bodies is defined by administrative-territorial division in most of foreign countries. Two- or three-link administrative-territorial organization is mostly spread. A more complicated four- or five-link administrative-territorial organization can be found, but it affects complexity of election system for bodies of local self-government.
Bottom level of the system is represented by city and village communes. Main characteristics, necessary to obtain the status of municipal formation are:
– historical significance;
– population;
– presence of economic premises;
– general level of development, etc.
For example, big cities of Europe – Paris, Brussels, and others have a two-level system of local self-government: city and district branches. Such cities as Berlin, Vienna, and others are authorized two have double status – subject of a federation and municipal formation.
Limits of municipal area of activity do not depend of territorial or local state of business significantly, but they are defined by ability of municipal bodies to participate in economic and social area of state activity. Such types of authorities are fixed by either special laws or laws on separate sectors of state development – healthcare, enlightenment, etc.
In countries of Anglo-Saxon model of local self-government authorities are stated in regulative acts of their responsibility area, and therefore, their activity implies only those measures that are fixed by law, in other words it is called the principle of positive regulation.
In countries of continental or mixed model of local self-government territorial bodies ca carry out any actions that are not forbidden by law, such system is called principle of negative regulation (at the same time, a great number of the existing prohibitions complicates independent activity of societies dramatically).
The following structures are under direct jurisdiction of local self-government:
1) municipal property;
2) finance;
3) all areas of communal affairs, municipal formation;
4) household maintenance;
5) charity organizations, etc.
Considering specific features of the whole social-economic area, within limits of which bodies of local self-government function in foreign countries allows us to alter the role of innovative and financial components among all factors of economic growth.
Let us outline that financial basis of foreign local self-government is defined by a great diversity. At the same time, financial basis of local self-government represents a relatively independent system that is established by presence of independent budgets, sources of income, authority to set and collect local taxes.
Dualistic nature of financial basis, in other words, a situation, when one part of municipal income is formed due to independent sources of income, and another part of t comes from subsidies, received from budgets of higher level, serves as a method to re-distribute national income and put municipal formations on one level, and also has a regulative impact upon municipal bodies. In USA such kind of governmental incomes form 23%, in France – 33,8%, in Japan – 40%, in Germany – 45,3%. Income is formed by subsidies, or unreturned sums, provided to municipalities, and subventions, in other words, funds aimed to finance specific objectives, usage of these funds is a subject of report, and also participation in realization of all-state programmes.
There are almost no existing countries where local self-government has a complete financial independence. Local authorities, budgets of which are mostly formed of their own taxes can be described as ones with the most stable financial basis. High tax incomes have local governments of such countries as Sweden (70%), USA (65%), England (50,4%), Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France (over 40%), and Germany (21%). In other countries of European continent amounts of tax incomes form about 30% of total budget funds. The highest tax incomes are provided by property tax, real estate tax (USA, Great Britain), enterprise and land taxes.
We shall underline that indexes of financial independence only reflect the global picture. Each country has successful and unfavourable local societies. For example, over half of Venezuela municipalities with population up to 50 thousand people receive 80% of their budget funds from money, transferred to them by the government as financial help.
Regardless of serious differences between formation and development of local self-government in different countries, we should point out existing general legislations, for example, development of democratic trends; tendency to limit administrative centralization; establishment of certain balance between centralism and decentralization trends in development of local authorities; transition from decentralization, in other words, expansion of functions and competences of local governmental bodies along with limitation in powers of state bodies, towards deconcentration, which consists in transition of authorities to lower levels of leadership in centralized systems of state governance. At the same time, a powerful mechanism of influencing local societies is being formed, and it encourages them to treat interests of society in a more “favourable” fashion: it implies legal regulation, certain financial dependence, controlling activity, delegation of jurisdictions, all-state programmes, etc.
Thus, local self-government represents one of the most important institutes of modern society. During many years extension of economic and governing independence of regional and local authorities has been carried out as a measure of decentralizing system of territorial governance. Reference to experience of different countries with consideration of specific historical features of specific states allows us to study, integrate, and introduce the most acceptable and necessary reformations into the practice of local self-government of Russia.
The work is submitted to the International Scientific Conference «Priority directions of development of science, technologies and equipment», Italy, April 12-19, 2014, came to the editorial office оn 19.03.2014
Библиографическая ссылка
Balykhin A.G. Municipal management and foreign institutional forms of local self-government // Международный журнал экспериментального образования. – 2014. – № 6. – С. 61-64;URL: https://expeducation.ru/ru/article/view?id=5854 (дата обращения: 24.11.2024).